➡ The speaker expresses gratitude for his family, America, and the supporters of Judicial Watch during Thanksgiving. He also discusses a video posted by Democrat members of Congress, which he believes encourages the military to disobey President Trump’s orders. He suggests that this could be seen as sedition and calls for a criminal investigation into the matter. The speaker also criticizes the left for their actions against President Trump and encourages continued support for Judicial Watch.
➡ The article discusses the call for investigations into government officials and politicians, with a focus on their potential misconduct. It also highlights the controversy surrounding the Epstein case, and the efforts by Congress to release related files. The author criticizes the loopholes in the transparency law, which allow for withholding of information, and emphasizes the need for more accountability and full disclosure. The article concludes by stating that despite the transparency law, more efforts are needed to uncover the truth.
➡ Judicial Watch, a legal organization, is challenging an Illinois law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted up to 14 days after Election Day. They argue that this law violates federal law and threatens election integrity. The case has reached the Supreme Court, and its outcome could significantly impact future elections. The organization believes that candidates should have the right to challenge such laws in court.
➡ Judicial Watch, a legal group, argues that counting ballots received after Election Day is against federal law, which sets a specific election day, not weeks or months. They’ve had a successful case in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and now Mississippi is appealing this decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s decision, which could come as soon as next week, could be a significant ruling in election law. Judicial Watch’s goal is to ensure elections are fair, free, and follow the law to prevent voter fraud and boost voter confidence.

As we come up on Thanksgiving, I know we all say, what are we thankful for? Right? And the way our culture is, they try to kind of say that generally, what are you thankful for? Who are you thankful for? To who are you thankful? Remember, we are not thankful in the general happy sense. We’re thankful to our Lord. That’s what Thanksgiving Day is about. We are thankful to our Lord for the gifts he gives to us. And so, accordingly, I am thankful for my wife, my children. I’m thankful for America. I’m thankful for the commitment of Judicial Watch supporters that allow us to do all this great work.

I’m thankful for my colleagues. And I recognize none of this is by happenstance. I mean, if we think we’re on this earth for a purpose and it’s God’s purposes, we have to remember that the Thanksgiving prayer really is to our Creator. So with that, I encourage you, and I would dare say that you should be thankful for a Judicial Watch, too, if you’re supporting us. Thank you for your support. And I know this is the time of giving as we enter the Thanksgiving and Christmas season. And I encourage you to recommit if you’re already supporting us, with additional support, but also join our cause and join our movement.

It’s a great way to help protect the country, because so much of what Judicial Watch does in terms of election integrity, government accountability, exposing and stopping the abuses of power here in Washington, D.C. when you think it’s bad, it would be so much worse. And arguably, we would have lost the country in significant ways. But for Judicial Watch. So, on behalf of myself and my colleagues here at Judicial Watch, I wish you and yours a wonderful and happy Thanksgiving. Is there sedition in Congress targeting President Trump? It looks like there is. Of course, the media is defending the outrageous video that was posted by Democrat members of Congress, essentially encouraging the military to engage in a mutiny and disobey orders of President Trump.

Now, of course, they won’t say that’s what their intent was or what they said, but you could be the judge. And I think we all see through what they did. And here’s the video it includes. Let’s go to Twitter here. Our friends at libs @TikTok posted it nicely for us. As I said, leftists promoting a military coup. Here, let me see what you think, because the media will tell you what they said, characterize what they said, but I want you to see what they said so you have the context. I’m Senator Alyssa Slotkin. Senator Mark Kelly.

Representative Chris d’. Aluzio. Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander. Representative Chrissy Houlihan. Congressman Jason Crow. I was a captain in the United States Navy, former CIA officer, former Navy, former paratrooper and Army Ranger, former intelligence officer, former Air Force. We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks each day to keep Americans safe. We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens like us. You all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution.

Right now, the threats to our Constitution, Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant. But whether you’re serving in the CIA, the army, or Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. And know that we, we have your back. Because now more than ever, the American people need you.

We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans. Don’t give up. Don’t give up. Don’t give up. Don’t give up. The ship. How on earth is that not encouraging sedition? They’re not fooling anyone. First of all, what unlawful orders is President Trump given or is set to give that would warrant a video like this? What they are implying, quite directly, is that lawful orders that they don’t like Democrats or leftists or progressives, whatever you want to call them, should be ignored by our military, should be ignored by civilian intelligence officials.

So if this isn’t a sedition or calling for effectively a military coup, I don’t know what you would do other than being more direct in doing so. So in my view, they’re fooling no one. It’s certainly encouraging in a dangerous fashion, sedition against the president, mutiny, whatever you want to call it. And they are using their status as veterans to provide, I think, dangerous and bad faith advice to members of our military. And I just can’t believe they think that’s appropriate. So what is the response? Trump is bad because Trump highlighted it. Seditious, highlighted that the potential penalty in some cases for such sedition is the death penalty.

So what is their response? Oh, we didn’t say that. Well, they’re not fooling anyone. They did say it, and I do think they should be subject to criminal investigation. I Call these six members who participated in this, the seditious six. They should be subject to criminal investigation and to the degree any of them are still subject to military jurisdiction, I’m not sure if any of them still are. Maybe Senator Kelly is. The military should call him back into service where appropriate and commence court martial proceedings over this sedition. You know, the left has sought to kill President Trump, put his life in danger, sought to jail President Trump, they killed Charlie Kirk, they’re encouraging violence and lawlessness against federal law enforcement and ICE suggesting the laws shouldn’t be followed.

And the context of this is President Trump using his lawful authorities under Article 2 of the Constitution and Commander in Chief to deploy the military to protect life, limb and property in various cities, including here in Washington, D.C. and they simply are echoing the left’s malicious defamation, that that’s unlawful and it’s somehow inappropriate when in fact it’s perfectly reasonable under the law. And given the conditions taking place and the threats to the public safety and federal law enforcement in these various left wing controlled cities. And what they’re doing is they’re trying to set up a very dangerous situation where the military or members of the military refuse to follow lawful orders by the President of the United States.

And you’re not fooling me by pretending them to be unlawful. Do you expect them to come out and say you should ignore President Trump’s orders whether they’re lawful or not? No, they’re not going to say that. They’re going to couch it in the terms they did. Watch that video again and tell me if you believe that there was a completely innocent recitation of what the law is as to the rights of the military to follow only lawful orders. They’re fooling no one. So what is happening now? They’re complaining to the U.S. capitol Police that Trump threatened them.

So they’re trying to divert attention from their unlawful and potentially criminal conduct by pretending Trump did something wrong by defending himself against this seditious conspiracy. So there, and I’m not going to bore you with the law, you can these days. You don’t need me to tell you how to look up what the laws at issue here are, potentially. But just so you know, there are civilian laws, meaning laws that cover those of us in the civilian world, both criminal laws about this type of behavior. And if you’re in the military, there are laws within the military legal structure where you can be subject to court martial.

And I think thosei think all of that should be pursued. So I’m not going to, I’m not going to pretend to ignore my lying. My eyes. Right. You know, it’s like, who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes? Right. I see what they did. You see what they did. And indeed, they’re kind of trying to run away. Oh, we didn’t mean he had done anything unlawful. We’re just worried about what he might do in the future. Future. What might he do in the future that requires you to encourage essentially military resistance to civilian control of our armed forces? I mean, I keep on talking about this coup that’s been taking, and it’s been a long, slow motion coup against our republic.

And it’s most significant iteration has been the targeting of Trump. And here we just saw it this week. Here we just saw it this week. This is a dangerous situation for America. When you have politicians gambling. With lives, are they suggesting, for instance, that lawful orders? Because this is the position of many on the left and many people disagree with. I think what he’s done has been perfectly appropriate. His taking out these drug smugglers, these drug runners on the high seas. So someone decides it’s not a lawful order to pursue this. How’s that going to work? Who’s going to be placed in danger in those circumstances? You know, here at Judicial Watch, you see a lot of awful things by government officials, politicians.

This is near the top. It’s really an assault on our Republican form of government. Appealing to the military to take a stand against the elected President of the United States. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. So what would be outrageous is for the Justice Department not to pursue this. What would be outrageous is. What would be outrageous would be for the War Department not to appropriately investigate those that are still subject to their jurisdiction or the law. Trump should just keep on keeping on on this. And I would go a step further than what President Trump has said. I would, if I were President Trump, direct the Justice Department, the Attorney General of the United States and the Secretary of War to investigate and if necessary, arrest and then prosecute.

If the facts and law warrant the individuals who did this, Just do it. Really incredible. And the other big news is the release or the efforts by Congress to release the Epstein files. You know, the media was pretending that it was all, you know, that President Trump had something to hide. He really didn’t. But Trump knew that the left was going to use any mention of his name against him. And what has happened is the material that has been released essentially has been devastating to the Democratic left because Epstein had this terrible criminal record. And many key leftists in Obama’s world, Clinton, world you name it, you name it.

They, for instance, we found out that we had a delegate, not a member of Congress, but a delegate who. Who was texting with Epstein as she was sitting in a hearing trying to destroy Trump. So Epstein was actually working with the Democrats to try to destroy Trump. So that didn’t work out well for them in terms of what the results of this disclosure would be. But just so you know, we have had at least two federal FOIA lawsuits, one against Justice Department of the FBI. Give us those Epstein files you said you were going to release, and two, one against the CIA.

Now, you would think, well, now all of that has been obviated by the transparency law that was signed by President Trump after being supported by all but one member of the House and in the Senate. I haven’t confirmed, but my understanding is from reports, they just let it go through almost instantaneously. They didn’t even do a recorded vote. It was a voice vote, which means it just gets passed by acclamation, more or less. And I’m like, well, this is good. Maybe we’ll get records that we otherwise wouldn’t get. And then I went and looked at the bill.

Now, the good news about the bill, it does require disclosure within a certain amount of time of the records that can be disclosed. Typically, the bad news about the bill, as I’ve jokingly mentioned, it’s got loopholes big enough for a plane with Bill Clinton on it to fly to Epstein’s Island. Gigantic loopholes to withhold information. So here we have the bill, nicely pictured here. Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this act, the Attorney General shall, subject to subsection B, make publicly available to, in a searchable and downloadable format, all unclassified records, documents, communications and investigation investigative materials in the possession of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the United States Attorney’s offices that relate to essentially, Epstein Maxwell flight logs, the death of Epstein, you know, basically how the case was handled.

But I want to go back. I want you to see this again. What does it say? Subject Subsection B. Okay, the first alert you should be noting here is that all unclassified records. What’s the mirror of that? You can withhold classified records, but it gets worse. This is subsection B. So all the records subject to subsection in compliance with subsection B, which has all of these, not disclosure requirements, but secrecy protections, records that contain personally identifiable information of victims or victims, personal and medical files and similar files, for the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, that the picture contained child sexual abuse materials as defined under law.

I guess there’s no objections to that would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary. The picture contained images of death, physical abuse or injury of any persons contain information specifically authorized in the criteria established by the executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy, or in fact, properly classified pursuant to such executive order. So they’re not telling them declassified information. They’re saying if it’s classified, you can keep it classified. Now, they do say that if they do redact material, they have to have justifications, And they encourage the Attorney General to declassify information to the maximum extent possible.

So that’s a long way of saying there’s lots of opportunities to withhold information, especially since President Trump, for example, has in my view, correctly directed the Justice Department to see were there any other crimes here that should have been prosecuted, especially in light of the new information that Congress is uncovering. Not information that they’re getting from the administration, but information it looks like they were getting in large measure from a subpoena to Epstein’s estate. So I’m not sure if the estate records match completely everything that the Justice Department has or whether the estate had more information the Justice Department doesn’t have.

But if there’s an ongoing criminal investigation, there’s their out for not releasing information. Now, does this mean that Judicial Watch is going to get all this information under foia? No. There’s no enforcement mechanism here. There’s no way to challenge these records under this law that are being withheld. The decisions to withhold records under law, the only way to do that is through foia, and that’s why we have the Freedom of Information act lawsuit for all these records. Our case isn’t going to go away. In many ways, this law highlights the need for it. Now, there are all these questions about Epstein’s connections to intelligence agencies.

I don’t know if all that’s true or I’m not prepared to kind of tell you it’s all wet or it’s something that should be seriously considered as true. But we do know there are questions. And so what we did was we asked the CIA for Epstein records, and we’ve gotten the proverbial hand to the face. So we’re in federal court now about it. Those records, it looks like, won’t be covered by this transparency law. What about records the State Department has? What about records The Treasury Department has. I mean, there are all these issues with JP Morgan, et cetera.

So this is a good first step for transparency. I’m glad to see Congress take significant steps for transparency. This is the most significant transparency law passed in a long time. But there’s more to be done. And Judicial Watch will do it. Well, actually is doing it. So the irony is we filed this lawsuit for Epstein records. When did we file that lawsuit? You all remember in the back. It’s got to be at least six months ago by now, right? Yeah, back in March. March or April. Not one record has been turned over to Judicial Watch. Not one record.

Now, hopefully we get more records through this process. Well, if they’re redacted, we still may have to challenge the redactions. We can’t do it under this law, but we can do it under foia. So it’s good we’re getting more transparency because it’s clear the American people want it. How do I know it’s clear every member of Congress voted for it? I would suggest that it’s also an indication that the American people really want accountability for the corruption here in Washington, D.C. they want the truth. They want full disclosure. And Epstein is kind of like. It’s not kind of like.

Is Exhibit A. The interest in getting those records out is Exhibit A because in this case, they see a person who engaged in terrible conduct seemingly getting a slap on the wrist. Large. You know, many people think it was a slap on the wrist. Larger goes to jail and he gets out after committing essentially sex crimes. And what happens? He’s treated as if nothing happened by top Obama officials, etc. So the Epstein story ain’t over yet. And even with this transparency law, it’s only the beginning of the effort. And, you know, we’ve known this. We know this about everything government does.

One disclosure order rarely is enough to get the full truth out. And your Judicial Watch, because of our expertise in foia, is as well positioned as anyone, including Congress, to get access to a lot of this information. So let’s see if they start turning over records to us under foia. It’s one thing they don’t even follow FOIA law. The agencies. When I say we had the sue to get records, what that means is, in this case specifically, the Justice Department and the FBI are not following FOIA law. The two agencies charged with enforcing the rule of law are violating it on the key matter of transparency for their own potential misconduct.

And areas of public interest that have significant. Well, actually areas of public interest that they promise to be more transparent on so the Epstein transparency law is good, necessary, but not sufficient. And it’s not all it is cracked up to be. I want to bring you up to speed on what could be the most significant election law case in recent history. That is Judicial Watch’s lawsuit in Illinois on behalf of presidential electors and Congressman Mike Bost, who are suing Illinois because in that state they count ballots that arrive for up to 14 days after election. And rather than just adjudicate the case as has been brought by Judicial Watch’s attorneys, the court there said that the candidate has no right, no standing, to pursue his claim in court.

So we appealed. We lost the appeal, although one of the appellate judges agreed. Of course the person has standing. And then we appealed that to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court a few weeks ago held an oral argument in which Judicial Watch’s legal team presented important arguments on the issue of standing for candidates on this key election law matter. We compiled a nice video to describe the issue legally for you and in a way that I think I suspect you’ll be able to understand it. Let’s play the video. The Supreme Court of the United States is about to hear a landmark case that could reshape how elections are run nationwide.

Judicial Watch is challenging an Illinois law that allows the counting of mail in ballots that arrive up to 14 days after election day. That’s two weeks beyond the date set by federal law. Even ballots that arrive without a postmark can be counted. Federal law says the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of every even numbered year is Election Day for federal elections. Extending the counting of ballots doesn’t just run counter to federal law. It invites voter fraud and undermines voter confidence. Judicial Watch argues that Illinois’s law violates federal law and threatens election integrity. In addition, we argue candidates running for office should be able to challenge these sorts of laws in court.

Until recently, it was self evident that candidates could sue to challenge election regulations. However, two lower courts ruled that our clients candidates for federal office lacked the basis to challenge Illinois’s practice of counting ballots received after Election Day. Standing is the legal term for this legal right to pursue a lawsuit in court. Judicial Watch lawyers responded that candidates have an obvious interest in the lawfulness and fairness of the rules that govern the elections into which they pour their time and resources. They also have an obvious interest in ensuring that the final vote tally accurately reflects the legally valid votes cast.

If a candidate can’t challenge the illicit counting of ballots contrary to federal law, who can? This is the exact issue now before the Supreme Court. No other legal organization has matched Judicial Watch’s record in ensuring free and fair elections. The outcome of this Supreme Court case could impact how elections are run for years to come. And you can be sure Judicial Watch will continue to fight for election integrity because no one is above the law. So you can see it’s a pretty straightforward issue whether candidates have the right to challenge whether an election is being stolen or not by saying the law is being violated here.

Votes in this case are being counted that shouldn’t be counted. And I don’t understand. Well, I do understand why the courts in these circumstances refuse to protect that right and vindicate that right by Congressman Boss and the electors we represent. And I think it’s because in 2020, you had all these courts get nervous because Trump and supporters of Trump were concerned about the way elections were run and sought to intervene and try to fix the elections and make sure they were run appropriately. And there were all sorts of standing issues that were thrown out the door that had been solid law for since the time of the founding.

So it was disturbing to see that, and I’m hoping the court fixes it. We were ably represented by Paul Clement, esteemed, esteemed Supreme Court litigator, former Solicitor General for the United States. Solicitor General is the top lawyer in the Justice Department who represents the interests of the government to the Supreme Court. And he’s been before the court well over 100 times, so he knows what he’s doing. Here’s some clips from his opening and closing statements to the court that day. Illinois counts mail in ballots received up to two weeks after election. Petitioners contend that under controlling federal law, that is two weeks too long.

As a result, if. If the petitioner’s merits theory is credited, which it must be for evaluating standing, then Illinois is counting unlawful ballots. Those unlawful ballots could cost Congressman Bost the election or at least reduce his margin of victory. And he has to pay his campaign staff for two extra weeks. All of that means that Congressman Bost has standing three times over. The court below lost sight of that straightforward conclusion only by misreading this court’s precedents and misperceiving candidates who pour untold time and treasure into the election and are the ones whose names are actually on the ballot as mere bystanders with a generalized grievance.

That decision is not only wrong, but dangerous. It needlessly injects federal courts into the role of political prognosticators. It risks denying judicial access to minor party candidates, and it shuffles election disputes into the Closest races and the worst possible context, election disputes. After the election, where federal courts are in the uncomfortable position of having to pick the political winners, there is a better way. And it simply requires acknowledging that candidates have a unique, concrete and particularized interest in the rules of the electoral road, especially those that address which ballots are going to be counted and when.

At a bare minimum, a longer campaign is a more expensive campaign, and that classic pocketbook injury is sufficient to give Congressman Bost standing. There is no need to make the standing inquiry here any more complicated than that. A candidate is not a bystander in his or her own election. Their name’s on the ballot. They put their lives on hold. So they have a special interest in what’s on the ballot. Yeah, this is a pretty straightforward issue. And I talked about the way the law has been distorted, not only in our case initially, but in other election law cases outside the Supreme Court.

After the oral argument, let’s go to that. I think a lot of the questions from the court suggested they’re concerned about a mess in the lower courts. And, you know, in 2020, the argument was, you can’t sue, it’s too soon, you can’t sue, it’s too close. Even after the election, it’s too late. And I don’t think the court wants to do that anymore. And I think we’re seeing a direction where the court’s going to say, look, you know, the sun rises Canada’s. So I was privileged to sit and watch Paul and our election law team, Russ Nobel, who you may have seen on Judicial Watch presentations before, he’s one of our leading election law lawyers.

He was sitting up there with Paul Clement, really negotiate with the Supreme Court as to what the standing requirement should be and how expansive it should be. And it looked to me, sitting there, I had a good view. I was literally front and center. And it looks like there could be seven votes, as many as seven votes in our favor, including potentially Justice Kagan. And I’m not even sure if Justice Sotomayor may not support this standing, because you have groups like the ACLU and the League of Women’s Voters come in and support our standing analysis as well.

So we could get a sort of ideological majority, a supermajority that upholds the right of candidates to go in and sue to prevent an election from being stolen or from being illegally run in a way that undermines confidence in elections and obviously puts the candidate in a position where they have to spend extra money and be hassled in terms of dealing with illegalities as alleged. And it’s not the only case we’re pursuing in this regard. We have a case in California. We were representing Congressman Darrell Issa challenging California’s counting of ballots that arrive for up to seven days after Election Day.

Seven days after Election Day. You want to know why California takes so long to get its act together in terms of reporting results? One of the reasons is they count ballots. They allow ballots to arrive for up to seven days after Election Day. In Illinois, by the way, they don’t even need to be postmarked to be counted. It’s that outrageous. The good news is in Mississippi, another case that we had pursued, and by the way, we’re the ones who initiated this litigation in such a successful and dramatic way nationally to challenge the 20 states or the practice in 20 states generally, specifically in three that allowed accounting ballots to arrive after Election Day.

They do it here in D.C. you know, you can look up the rules in your own state. It’s almost half the country. In Mississippi, they count ballots that arrive for up to five days after Election Day. We initiated litigation there that resulted in a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision finding that to be unlawful. The first appellate decision finding counting ballots that arrive after election Day to be unlawful. And why is it unlawful? Because federal law sets election days. It doesn’t set election weeks or election months. And the idea that your ballot comes in after election day and gets counted is contrary to any sensible interpretation of federal law that sets an election day.

As President Trump, whose legal position is largely concurrent with Judicial Watches, or in sync with Judicial Watches, in fact, the Justice Department’s team argued in favor of our position, or at least most of our position. Unfortunately, they were a little weak, but I’ll leave that aside. They agree with us. Generally. Theyi mean Trump. When he was talking about this issue in an executive order, he made the point that it’s like someone showing up three days after Election Day and going to the polls and saying they want to have their vote counted too late. So you need to be sure your ballots get if you’re going to mail your ballots.

And we can argue about whether there should be mail in ballots. I don’t think generally speaking, there shouldn’t be. You’ve got to make sure they get in there by Election Day because in my view, federal law requires it. And states that count ballots that arrive late are. Are acting contrary to federal law. So I talked about that 5th Circuit success. Now Mississippi is appealing it to the Supreme Court. So it could be we’re in the Supreme Court, not only on the standing to challenge that lawlessness, but the actual lawlessness itself. Will the Supreme Court take up Mississippi’s case and decide whether Judicial Watch is correct in its application, federal election law, and that counting ballots that arrive after Election Day is unlawful.

Now, when will we find out about the Supreme Court’s decision? Maybe as soon as next week. They could have decided it last week, but they what they call the lawyers call it, they relisted it for a conference on November 7, which is a Friday, and they typically announce the results of that conference where they talk about cases they want to take up or not take up, and make decisions along those lines on November 10th. Now, is it guaranteed they’ll talk about it on November 7th and they don’t delay it a little bit longer? No, but it could come as soon as I say November 10th based on a decision they make on November 7th.

So we could have your Judicial Watch Team two cases before the United States Supreme Court on this essential matter. The issue is standing and the right of candidates to challenge elections, go to court and challenge and try to stop an election from being stolen. I mean, this could be the most important case in a generation in terms of election law. And I think the left doesn’t know what to do because they at least, as I point out, the aclu, which opposes us in most other every other election law case, is on our side in terms of standing.

And I’m convinced that the Supreme Court is going to look very skeptically at courts or at states who want to count ballots that arrive after Election Day. Because think about it, what is the standard? How long can they wait? Can they count ballots until the next election? If not, why would there be a prohibition? How do you decide how long they can count ballots for? So that’s the big issue. And Judicial Watch once again is front and center on this core effort to ensure that elections are fair and free and run according to law in a way that guards against voter fraud and instills voter confidence.

Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below.
[tr:tra].

See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.